Gov. Mitt Romney eviscerated a staggering and bewildered President Barack Obama tonight in one of the most lopsided presidential debates in American history. Throughout the debate, which focused on domestic policy, Obama looked shaken, rarely looking at the camera, reciting old talking points and filibustering as Romney gave a master class at the University of Denver.

The debate had been described as a must-win for Romney--and he delivered. Using a rapid-fire style that had not been seen even in the numerous Republican primary debates, he bobbed and weaved through Obama’s attacks and moderator Jim Lehrer’s interjections, launching bullet-point policies that displayed not just a familiarity with the wonkish details but a focus on the travails of ordinary people he had met on the trail.

Again and again, Romney returned to his theme: creating jobs. He did--as expected--take Obama to task for misrepresenting his policies, principally Romney's tax policy, which Obama referred to, even after being corrected, as a $5 trillion tax cut. But Romney exceeded expectations in focusing on the end result he wished to attain--and which, he said, the president wished to sacrifice: creating jobs for a struggling American workforce.

Obama could not have pleased anyone except those playing drinking games at home, with familiar references to corporate jets (drink!), job training programs (drink!), and tax cuts for shipping jobs overseas (drink!). And for these tired suggestions, most of which appeared in Obama’s talking points in 2008, Romney reminded the president that he had four years in which to enact his policies, to which the president could only nod.

Romney came armed with some memorable one-liners. He called Obama’s economic policy “trickle-down government.” He called the decline in household incomes under the Obama administration the “economy tax.” And--most memorably--he attacked Obama’s green energy subsidies, including Solyndra, Fisker, Tesla, and other failures: “You don’t just pick the winners and losers. You pick the losers.” Obama had nothing in response.

Obama refused--as he has done throughout the campaign--to adopt the stance of the incumbent, and tried to fight as the insurgent challenger, as if his own record were not up for debate. But Romney refused to let him escape--and soon Obama began making several blunders, stating at one point that he had conversations with Americans about their health care “four years ago”--i.e. not since he has taken office. He even turned his frustration upon moderator Jim Lehrer at one point, accusing him of interrupting him.

Lehrer, for his part, was quicker to pounce on Romney with follow-up questions, giving Obama a wider berth. Yet Romney did not let Lehrer divert him from his message or cut off his defenses. He even teased the moderator with his proposal to cut funding from PBS, among other government programs. It was a fearless and clarifying performance.

On health care--which might have been Romney’s weakest issue--Romney argued for the repeal of Obamacare as the best Tea Partier might have done, attacking the board that the law sets up to ration care as a cost control mechanism. The best that Obama could do was remind voters--as if they did not already know--that Romney had passed a health insurance law in Massachusetts. He had to concede one of the best arguments Romney offered--that Obamacare has actually increased the cost of insurance so far.

Romney missed a few--very few--opportunities, taking a long time to defend his tax policy by pointing out that it would be revenue-neutral because it would encourage economic growth. And Obama did put a few points on the board, reminding viewers (twice) of his popular Race to the Top education program, and that he had amassed experience as commander-in-chief with which Romney cannot (yet) compete.

Yet Obama seemed uneasy simply to have a worthy opponent on the other side of the stage. He could not even articulate his oft-repeated philosophy of government in the most basic terms, borrowing from the likes of Barney Frank in describing government as “the things we do together.” Romney gave a straight answer: that the role of government is simply to defend the principles of the Constitution and the founding documents, without replacing the roles of individuals and communities in helping the less fortunate.

Even conservatives who predicted that Romney would do well could not have imagined that he would do this well. It was as complete a victory as any presidential challenger has ever scored--and it exceeded even the hopes of Romney’s most fervent supporters. Obama came across as a politician--a rattled one, grinning and frowning, searching for a way out. Romney came across as a problem-solver, and--amazingly--more in touch with the American people.

There are two more presidential debates, following next Thursday’s debate between the vice presidential candidates. And so Obama will have a chance to redeem himself. But it will be back to the drawing board for Team Obama, while Team Romney will build upon a win they have anticipated for many months and may enjoy for many months hence.

The great James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal and The American Spectator long ago posited what is called the "Taranto Principle." In short, it means that the liberal media so coddles liberal politicians that they have no idea how to cope outside that liberal media bubble.

It's safe to say that Barack Obama tonight came face-to-face with the latest embodiment of the Taranto Principle -- which is to say, Mitt Romney.

Barack Obama has been so totally coddled by the liberal media that he looked absolutely shell-shocked in this debate. Stunned, unhappy, angry, sour -- and at some points genuinely incoherent.

Romney has had nowhere near that kind of treatment. He had serious opponents in the primaries -- all of whom in their own way forced him to confront his ideas in a serious fashion. Conservatives were on his heels. The Obama media never let up. The man went through the political equivalent of boot camp.

I think Romney’s approach is the only approach that will work in a bi-partisan (we need to get rid of the two party system), and he has been successful with it as a Governor. You can’t show up with a plan that you think is perfect and try to ram it down everybody’s throat. It is the same on a tiny scale for me and my employees, you will not get what you want without everyone ‘buying in’ and feeling like they had a part in the decision making process. An added benefit of this is that everyone then feels some responsibility for success or failure.

As a good manager/leader/boss you have to know where you want to go, and then let your people help to decide the best way to get there.

I think Romney’s approach is the only approach that will work in a bi-partisan (we need to get rid of the two party system), and he has been successful with it as a Governor. You can’t show up with a plan that you think is perfect and try to ram it down everybody’s throat. It is the same on a tiny scale for me and my employees, you will not get what you want without everyone ‘buying in’ and feeling like they had a part in the decision making process. An added benefit of this is that everyone then feels some responsibility for success or failure.

As a good manager/leader/boss you have to know where you want to go, and then let your people help to decide the best way to get there.

People have lost faith in the system because of career politicians like Obama that have grown up in the public sector and are used to going face to face with the other party 24/7 and pushing their ideals through the ringer as hard as they can.

People have lost faith in the system because of career politicians like Obama that have grown up in the public sector and are used to going face to face with the other party 24/7 and pushing their ideals through the ringer as hard as they can.

Barack Obama has been so totally coddled by the liberal media that he looked absolutely shell-shocked in this debate. Stunned, unhappy, angry, sour -- and at some points genuinely incoherent.

Romney has had nowhere near that kind of treatment. He had serious opponents in the primaries -- all of whom in their own way forced him to confront his ideas in a serious fashion. Conservatives were on his heels. The Obama media never let up. The man went through the political equivalent of boot camp.

Yup, if you are surrounded by yes-men and those in the media who so desparately want to believe your unrealistic "hope and change" mantra that they wont dwell on anything which challenges it, then the cold hard light of day can be a harsh awakening. I guess 4 years of the George Clooneys of the world kissing your ass and telling you how wonderful you are, after a while you start to actually believe it.

"The president could barely look at Mitt Romney, which was interesting. He really wouldn't engage with him, where as Romney would take the president on, on every issue." said CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger.

While Romney's body language seemed energetic, the president's body language was just the opposite. He seemed a bit irritated.

"I don't think anyone's ever spoken to him like that over the last four years. I think he found that not only surprising but offensive. It looked like he was angry at times," added CNN Senior Political Analyst David Gergen, who has advised both Democratic and Republican presidents.

This thing isn't over yet by a long shot and in my opinion we are going to be suffering through another 4 years of Obama, but going back and reading posts from the last election cycle are making me laugh. All of the ranting from the dems on here about how Obama is going to turn things around and their "anything but Bush" drabble, and all of the conservatives saying "no he isn't and when he doesn't he's going to blame it on the previous President" and look what has happened.

I'm shocked he didn't bring up the "47%" comment... I figured at some point he'd feel like a cornered dog and fight back, but he never did.

It's been all over the news. Either he just feels so comfortable with his small lead that he was being too relaxed, or he was just flabbergasted at what was happening. I think it was a little of both. President Obama has been known to be a little arrogant, so I wouldn't be surprised that he just shrugged it off because he thinks he's already going to be re-elected.

I honestly don't know if what happened last night will change the way anyone was thinking though... I think it will just reinforce conservatives that were already going to vote for Romney.

I'm shocked he didn't bring up the "47%" comment... I figured at some point he'd feel like a cornered dog and fight back, but he never did.

It's been all over the news. Either he just feels so comfortable with his small lead that he was being too relaxed, or he was just flabbergasted at what was happening. I think it was a little of both. President Obama has been known to be a little arrogant, so I wouldn't be surprised that he just shrugged it off because he thinks he's already going to be re-elected.

I honestly don't know if what happened last night will change the way anyone was thinking though... I think it will just reinforce conservatives that were already going to vote for Romney.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

In a way this quote reminds me of what I believe is a big reason that Obama will be re-elected. There are just too many people that rely on the government for assistance and have become comfortable living with it, and that number has continued to rise throughout his presidency.

You can tell me that I'm just piggy-backing off of Romney's 47% comment all you want (not you specifically, Templar, but people in general), but people with common sense have seen this coming for years.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

In a way this quote reminds me of what I believe is a big reason that Obama will be re-elected. There are just too many people that rely on the government for assistance and have become comfortable living with it, and that number has continued to rise throughout his presidency.

You can tell me that I'm just piggy-backing off of Romney's 47% comment all you want (not you specifically, Templar, but people in general), but people with common sense have seen this coming for years.

Exactly. As I've said before, the very lack of ability to foster a business-friendly environment which helps people find jobs and become more independant will, ironically, be a key factor in his victory if he gets re-elected. In a perverse way, instead of being punished for not enabling people to stand on their own, he will be rewarded for it.

If you have people who contribute more than they take, and others who take more than they contribute, and you create an environment that causes the latter group to grow much faster than the former, then all you have to do is pander to the interests of the larger, faster-growing group to create a cycle that feeds off itself. Basic, irrefutable math there.

This is especially true when the vote of the dependents counts just as much as the contributors. Ultimately it will implode when the well runs dry of course, but term limits will kick you out of the oval office long before that occurs.

As a good manager/leader/boss you have to know where you want to go, and then let your people help to decide the best way to get there.

You're right in terms of the vision and plan, and having a team get there. The problem is that he ostensibly had a team coaching him in order to prepare for the debate. Obama just didn't bring his A game - and it's not like he was staring at the red light like Cindy Brady.

We have two more debates, and maybe Biden will even be sober for the VP debate. But if Obama's yes men thought they'd be able to skate without doing any of the heavy lifting, their world view suddenly became less realistic last night. They've got some work to do now...

And best of all, I'm not holding my breath to see what happens next time. Romney didn't score with catchy lines or a quick superficial stuff. He stomped him with a thorough and complete master of the subject(s) and a willingness to mix it up. He was fast too, linking and mixing facts and subject areas in rapid fire fashion. No, Obama will see the same guy next time and the time after. "Mr President, you seem to have lost your ass, it's around here somewhere."

I have to say President Obama was not at his best during that debate. His performance could have been much better.

That being said, Rmoney did a rather amazing job with his lies and mistruths again. Like shabadoo said, 27 lies in 38 minutes. And the balls on the guy to go after PBS while a host from PBS is moderating the debate. Yeah because it's the funding for PBS that is just killing our budget. Sure.

I am not surprised that the right-wing crowd here is positively foaming at the mouth at the prospects of Rmoney doing well in the debate. It's a pretty good display of the integrity of Rmoney supporters when you champion a guy who just simply can't give the truth.

EDIT: PBS issues a statement about the debates. In it they say that PBS costs each taxpayer $1.35. Personally, I am fine with paying $1.35 for public broadcasting over the year. I'll spend $2.45 on a starbucks later this morning, so forkin' over a buck fifty for Big Bird is fine with me.

EDIT: PBS issues a statement about the debates. In it they say that PBS costs each taxpayer $1.35. Personally, I am fine with paying $1.35 for public broadcasting over the year. I'll spend $2.45 on a starbucks later this morning, so forkin' over a buck fifty for Big Bird is fine with me.

What about people that do not watch PBS, or TV for that matter? Oh wait, it's for the good of everyone, which means that if the government believes that it is for the good of the people, the government can by god throw everyone into a pot and force us to pay for it.

When you look at it on a large scale, and not just PBS, it truly is scary thinking.